Comparison of a novel Compressed SENSE accelerated 3D modified relaxation-enhanced angiography without contrast and trig
- PDF / 2,027,871 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 46 Downloads / 149 Views
ORIGINAL PAPER
Comparison of a novel Compressed SENSE accelerated 3D modified relaxation‑enhanced angiography without contrast and triggering with CE‑MRA in imaging of the thoracic aorta Lenhard Pennig1 · Anton Wagner1 · Kilian Weiss2 · Simon Lennartz1,3,4 · Michael Huntgeburth5 · Tilman Hickethier1 · David Maintz1 · Claas Philip Naehle1 · Alexander Christian Bunck1 · Jonas Doerner1 Received: 10 April 2020 / Accepted: 19 August 2020 © The Author(s) 2020
Abstract To compare a novel Compressed SENSE accelerated ECG- and respiratory-triggered flow-independent 3D isotropic Relaxation-Enhanced Angiography without Contrast and Triggering (modified REACT) with standard non-ECG-triggered 3D contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) for imaging of the thoracic aorta in patients with connective tissue diseases (CTD) or other aortic diseases using manual and semiautomatic measurement approaches. This retrospective, single-center analysis of 30 patients (June–December 2018) was conducted by two radiologists, who independently measured aortic diameters on modified REACT and CE-MRA using manual (Multiplanar-Reconstruction) and semiautomatic (Advanced Vessel Analysis) measurement tools on seven levels (inner edge): Aortic annulus and sinus, sinotubular junction, mid- and high-ascending aorta, aortic isthmus, and descending aorta. Bland–Altman analysis was conducted to evaluate differences between the mean values of aortic width and ICCs were calculated to assess interobserver agreement. For each level, image quality was evaluated on a four-point scale in consensus with Wilcoxon matched-pair test used to evaluate for differences between both MRA techniques. Additionally, evaluation time for each measurement technique was noted, which was compared applying one-way ANOVA. When comparing both imaging and measurement methods, CE-MRA (mean difference 0.24 ± 0.27 mm) and the AVA-tool (− 0.21 ± 0.15 mm) yielded higher differences compared to modified REACT (− 0.11 ± 0.11 mm) and the MPR-tool (0.07 ± 0.21 mm) for all measurement levels combined without yielding clinical significance. There was an excellent interobserver agreement between modified REACT and CE-MRA using both tools of measurement (ICC > 0.9). Modified REACT (average acquisition time 06:34 ± 01:36 min) provided better image quality from aortic annulus to mid-ascending aorta (p
Data Loading...
